Harvard Study Group would like to speak to me about my Ron Paul contributions?

[dirtdigger]

@ unknown

consider erasing that. It could get you in legal trouble and this forum in bad situation.

Don't think so. The search page on fund race (now part of Huffington Post) was called Neighbor Search. I think this thread is not good because the Communists at Harvard get data for their (taxpayer funded) "research" and I don't see why we should help the Communists.

 

[Cowlesy]

Right, so, they don't ask you to report any information. All they do is put the website on it. So, they are likely tracking from what areas they receive web-hits, or, from what sites do they get linked (i.e. if you hyperlinked there from here).

 

[Cowlesy]

Here is the guy's papers. Studying the effects of contributions to the Catholic Church given the sex abuse scandals. "Political Economy of Income Redistribution" - aka marxian political economy.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~rtruglia/papers.htm

He's just trying to measure if demonstrating that your political contributions/name/address is shown to be available to ANYONE, whether that changes how you donate.

What a bush-league way to do a study. If I don't donate the same amount of dough in the next campaign, it doesn't matter whether or not I know my info is public, it's whether i like a candidate.

 

[cgainey]

Maybe they are just trolling

 

[No1butPaul]

So they are trying to see if their letter will elicit a response to stop donating to a campaign ... um, this would seemingly be in some kind of violation of election laws. Question is, has any one other than a Ron Paul supporter received the letters. I think this needs to be investigated.

Note: Please add this to the list of possible things to attach to the Legal Defense Fund

 

[Kluge]

Probably gets public funds to do this bullshit too.

 

[No1butPaul]

Found this on the Internet -- following the information posted about what was on the website listed in the letter, is a letter from a supporter of, guess who?

Here is what the website says – This is the entirety of the website:

Welcome to our website. We are a group of researchers at Harvard University studying political campaign contributions made by individuals.

With that goal, we are sending out personalized mailings about campaign contributions in the US. If you receive a letter and have any questions about the information provided to you, please feel free to email us at [email protected] and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

If you are interested in receiving information about the results of the studies we are conducting, just send us a blank email to [email protected] and we will send you a brochure detailing our work as soon as our studies are finished. This research is being carried out at Harvard University by Ricardo Perez-Truglia ([email protected]) and Dr. Guillermo Cruces ([email protected]). You may also contact Ricardo Perez-Truglia’s thesis project supervisor by emailing Belynda Bady ([email protected]).

This project has been approved by Harvard’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research. Complaints or problems concerning any research project may, and should, be reported if they arise. You can contact the Committee via Committee Officer Jane Calhoun by phone (617-495-5459) or by email ([email protected]).

Individuals receiving letters were randomly selected from the public records of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Receipt of one of these letters means nothing more than that the recipient was chosen by an automated computer program to receive information about campaign donations in his or her neighborhood. The FEC explicitly allows the use of information about individual campaign contributions for academic research such as ours. The specific activities identified as permissible by the Federal Election Commission include the use of individual contributor information for bona fide academic research projects that do not involve the sale or use of that information for a commercial purpose or for soliciting contributions (see FEC Advisory Opinion No. 1986-25). Our research project has no commercial or political objective and thus complies with the rules regulating the use of contribution information. For more information, please see the FEC’s “sale and use brochure” (available online at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/sale_and_use_brochure.pdf).

Thank you again for your visit to this website. With best regards,

Ricardo Perez-Truglia and Guillermo Cruces (the research team)

PO BOX 380429, Cambridge, MA 02238

Here is my emailed response:

Dear “Researchers”,

I received one of your letters about my campaign contributions, and I am highly skeptical of your “research”.

Why are you “disseminating information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from my neighborhood”? What the fuck do I care about to whom other individuals contribute?

I resent your “efforts” to get people to actively look online to find out to whom their neighbors have contributed. Are you trying to Balkanize our neighborhood? Are you trying to use intimidation to suppress contributions to non-majority groups (i.e. non-Democrat)?

I think your “research” is bullshit, and I doubt you can defend it. So, tell me, what is the fucking point of your “research”? What do you hope to “understand”. I think your “research” falls into the realm of East German watch-and-report-on-your-neighbor tactics.

I dare you to defend your research.

[Cue the sound of crickets.]

Sincerely,

My Name

Donation: $215 to Ron Paul

 

[No1butPaul]

Also picked up by someone at Daily Paul, who also linked to the Burning Platform letter above.

http://www.dailypaul.com/233555/harrrrvard-is-engaged-in-some-research-lovey

And, by Tea Party Nation -- see their thoughts

http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/info-about-political-campaign-contributions

 

[CPUd]

...

Here is my emailed response:

Dear “Researchers”,

I received one of your letters about my campaign contributions, and I am highly skeptical of your “research”.

Why are you “disseminating information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from my neighborhood”? What the fuck do I care about to whom other individuals contribute?

I resent your “efforts” to get people to actively look online to find out to whom their neighbors have contributed. Are you trying to Balkanize our neighborhood? Are you trying to use intimidation to suppress contributions to non-majority groups (i.e. non-Democrat)?

I think your “research” is bullshit, and I doubt you can defend it. So, tell me, what is the fucking point of your “research”? What do you hope to “understand”. I think your “research” falls into the realm of East German watch-and-report-on-your-neighbor tactics.

I dare you to defend your research.

[Cue the sound of crickets.]

Sincerely,

My Name

Donation: $215 to Ron Paul

Responses like this are expected. It is likely that the percentage of subjects who get pissed off at the experiment itself is statistically insignificant. Congratulations on becoming an outlier.

This looks like a variation of the Asch Experiment:

 

[No1butPaul]

Congratulations on becoming an outlier

That poor schmuck! I think everyone here is an outlier because we do not conform to what the MSM is telling us we should conform. For the record though, I was not the author of that letter. It's not that I never use foul language, but never when I'm representing Dr. Paul. In fact, I feel intense pressure to be a really good and considerate driver because his bumper sticker is on my car. My kids told me one day they saw a Ron Paul bumper sticker and I asked, really? They said, yeah, he ran a red light. GASP!

 

[sailingaway]

Ok so I got a comfirmation email on the intent of what they are doing in response to my email.

But that is just stupid, there is no control at all on any of the other changes that might occur, finances, political race ending, there not being the politician you like in the next one..... that is simply a flawed study.

 

[sailingaway]

Poorly run wouldn't cover it.
I donated $1500 to Ron Paul AFTER receiving this letter for reasons of my own.Others have donated $0 after receiving this letter for reasons of THEIR own,none of which have anything to do with this letter.There is no way to get any useful information from the data they have.
I would like to see their end results simply to see if they made up the donations of the other people without last names in these letters.

Oh,and to laugh.

I threw their letter out without even reading it. And always would have (this time I knew what it was, but I'd never open something like that.)

 

[mad cow]

Curiosity killed the cat.I actually read it walking back from the mailbox.I throw out pounds of this crap unopened a week.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Here is the guy's papers. Studying the effects of contributions to the Catholic Church given the sex abuse scandals. "Political Economy of Income Redistribution" - aka marxian political economy.

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~rtruglia/papers.htm

He's just trying to measure if demonstrating that your political contributions/name/address is shown to be available to ANYONE, whether that changes how you donate.

What a bush-league way to do a study. If I don't donate the same amount of dough in the next campaign, it doesn't matter whether or not I know my info is public, it's whether i like a candidate.

But that is just stupid, there is no control at all on any of the other changes that might occur, finances, political race ending, there not being the politician you like in the next one..... that is simply a flawed study.

It is a clever study potentially. It doesn't matter about individual finances or who runs for office in the future.

Group A) 1000 random people get a letter - how much do they donate in the future?

Group B) 1000 random people do not get a letter - how much do they donate in the future?

Since Group B requires no postage, they could study 10,000 or 100,000 people. The study should work fine unless they don't have enough letters sent out to get statistically relevant results.

 

[sailingaway]

It is a clever study potentially. It doesn't matter about individual finances or who runs for office in the future.

Group A) 1000 random people get a letter - how much do they donate in the future?

Group B) 1000 random people do not get a letter - how much do they donate in the future?

Since Group B requires no postage, they could study 10,000 or 100,000 people. The study should work fine unless they don't have enough letters sent out to get statistically relevant results.

No, they will get numbers but won't know what percent didn't even open it, or if changes in donations were 99.9% due to other factors than the letter.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'd use that as a template if I get one of these.

Found this on the Internet -- following the information posted about what was on the website listed in the letter, is a letter from a supporter of, guess who?

Here is what the website says – This is the entirety of the website:

Welcome to our website. We are a group of researchers at Harvard University studying political campaign contributions made by individuals.

With that goal, we are sending out personalized mailings about campaign contributions in the US. If you receive a letter and have any questions about the information provided to you, please feel free to email us at [email protected] and we will get back to you as soon as possible.

If you are interested in receiving information about the results of the studies we are conducting, just send us a blank email to [email protected] and we will send you a brochure detailing our work as soon as our studies are finished. This research is being carried out at Harvard University by Ricardo Perez-Truglia ([email protected]) and Dr. Guillermo Cruces ([email protected]). You may also contact Ricardo Perez-Truglia’s thesis project supervisor by emailing Belynda Bady ([email protected]).

This project has been approved by Harvard’s Committee on the Use of Human Subjects in Research. Complaints or problems concerning any research project may, and should, be reported if they arise. You can contact the Committee via Committee Officer Jane Calhoun by phone (617-495-5459) or by email ([email protected]).

Individuals receiving letters were randomly selected from the public records of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Receipt of one of these letters means nothing more than that the recipient was chosen by an automated computer program to receive information about campaign donations in his or her neighborhood. The FEC explicitly allows the use of information about individual campaign contributions for academic research such as ours. The specific activities identified as permissible by the Federal Election Commission include the use of individual contributor information for bona fide academic research projects that do not involve the sale or use of that information for a commercial purpose or for soliciting contributions (see FEC Advisory Opinion No. 1986-25). Our research project has no commercial or political objective and thus complies with the rules regulating the use of contribution information. For more information, please see the FEC’s “sale and use brochure” (available online at http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/sale_and_use_brochure.pdf).

Thank you again for your visit to this website. With best regards,

Ricardo Perez-Truglia and Guillermo Cruces (the research team)

PO BOX 380429, Cambridge, MA 02238

Here is my emailed response:

Dear “Researchers”,

I received one of your letters about my campaign contributions, and I am highly skeptical of your “research”.

Why are you “disseminating information about political campaign contributions made by individuals from my neighborhood”? What the fuck do I care about to whom other individuals contribute?

I resent your “efforts” to get people to actively look online to find out to whom their neighbors have contributed. Are you trying to Balkanize our neighborhood? Are you trying to use intimidation to suppress contributions to non-majority groups (i.e. non-Democrat)?

I think your “research” is bullshit, and I doubt you can defend it. So, tell me, what is the fucking point of your “research”? What do you hope to “understand”. I think your “research” falls into the realm of East German watch-and-report-on-your-neighbor tactics.

I dare you to defend your research.

[Cue the sound of crickets.]

Sincerely,

My Name

Donation: $215 to Ron Paul

 

[JNL]

I received one of these letters last week, too. I wasn't sure whether it was a real study or some kind of scam. In the version I received, it seemed like the intent was intimidation/embarrassment, whether for research or some nefarious purpose. All of the other people in my neighborhood were listed as Last Initial, First Name and they all reportedly gave to Democrats. My name was the only listed as Full Last Name, First Name, and the only to have donated to a Republican. They also specified that they will send a report of future contributions after May 1 to a random selection of my neighbors.
They wouldn't need my consent for a study anyway, since it is publicly available data. So the letter itself, and the tone with which it is written, seems to be part of the experiment - so I figured that if it is indeed a legit study, it must be about how donation patterns change if they know that people can view their donations. However, the study seems terribly flawed - for example, if Ron Paul donations go down, it probably has more to do with recent events.

 

[LibertyIn08]

No, they will get numbers but won't know what percent didn't even open it, or if changes in donations were 99.9% due to other factors than the letter.

1. Read rates are fairly well known in the direct mail industry. One could simply use the lower bound estimate.
2. Obviously those not reading would also be beholden to the 99.9% of other factors. Comparing across a broad range versus a random sample and finding statistically significant changes in the random sample alone would suggest the change is perhaps partially due to the .1% factor (the letter).

 

[Elwar]

Harvard? Say no more...

 

[mczerone]

So who is funding the study and what result do they want to further an agenda?

It's a safe bet that they want to find that "open" info chills donations, so donations should be confidential. That's what this study is being done to do: provide cover for GS and Union employees who are sick of us knowing that Obama and Romney get money from the same big-money interests.

Maybe it should be confidential (so political affiliation can't be used against you in hiring, etc.), maybe it shouldn't be. But this study reeks of serving the interests of those with a specific agenda, and it's not us.